The Ethical Implication By Suzy Killmister: Article Analysis

Evaluation of “Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implication” by Suzy Killmister

Throughout time warfare has evolved both strategically and in their mechanics. Armed forces are no longer fighting with swords or lined up in trenches as commonly as they used to. It is only natural for something that is made to protect civilizations to evolve as strategists are introduced to new technologies. From swords to muskets and automatic rifles, the conversation now takes the “man to man” contact out of the equation. In Suzy Killmister’s article, in the Journal of Applied Philosophy titled “Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications”, she delves into the complications ethically behind the newest technology, Micro Air Vehicles or “WASPS”. She defines these vehicles as “autonomous weaponry capable of selecting, pursuing, and destroying targets without the necessity for

Killmisters argues this concept by way of mentioning a definition and debunking it. The first definition of if the people are innocent lies in the definition of democracy. In a democratic state the people vote on who they way tot represent them in worldly affairs and therefore the decisions made by the leaders were also then made by the people, argued by Buzan in the essay “Who May We Bomb?” Igor Primoratz’ retaliation says while the government does represent the people it is not a good enough reason to wage war against them.2 However he does also add citizens who are actively supporting the war would fall under the category of guilty. In addition, the term “responsible bystander” is defined as a person who could have prevented an attack with no harm to him or herself but does not; those people are guilty as well. Overall there are citizens that are innocent and responsible but there would be no way to figure out who was who but it is moral to target those who are if there was a way to sort